Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
The idea first came to me while doing some brainstorming in the EB forum. Here's a quick sketch of what I'd like to do, and how anyone interested can help:
The Problem: The basic premise of RTW is that three Roman families build their own separate territorial holdings over a period of generations, and then at some point fight a Civil War until one faction becomes the leader of all Rome. Of course - as most of you know - this "tri-partite Rome" has ZERO basis in historical fact. Several mods have addressed this by utilizing the "Unified Rome" concept (usually consisting of a single faction and the Senate). However, according to khelvan of the EB team, the result is "bugs" and/or "nuisances".
The Goal: Now some people enjoy the CA approach, and so did I for a while, but it would be nice to come up with a "unified Rome" concept that didn't generate a whole new set of problems.
The Concept: There are probably several ways to skin this cat, but the one I'd like to test involves replacing the Julii/Brutii/Scipii with Romans/Etruscans/Samnites. To quote from my EB posting; "The game begins with the "Civil War" already under way, except it's not really that. The Senate has outlawed the Etruscans and Samnites, meaning that Rome begins the game at war with both. The struggle for Italy consumed Rome's early history, and now we can simulate that AND do away with the artificial "three factions" constraint. This also offers players the option of selecting a "Roman" faction (i.e. Etruscan or Samnite) that is fundamentally different from the existing "me-too" factions. A little spice is nice, plus it fulfills the dreams of those "what-iffers" who wonder what a non-Roman Ancient Italy would have looked like.
The Challenge: The fundamental question is this - can the game be modded such that it starts with the Civil War already in process, and if not can we make adjustments to Senate/People popularity such that it will inevitably ensue shortly after the game begins?
Help! And that's where the vast experience of the modding community comes into play. Has anyone out there ever attempted something like this? If not, do you have any suggestions as to which files "control" the Civil War, and how they might be modified? The only one I've been able to find is "descr_senate.txt", and the Civil War triggers (such as they are) look pretty esoteric. So before I start beating my head against that wall, any and all suggestions would be appreciated!
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
I have 2 points for consideration. The 1st is the descr_strat file for the campaign. At the bottom, you can modify the initial diplomatic stances of faction vs. faction.
I found a shortcut to civil war among Romans by setting up a failed assassination attempt against another Roman faction. I was outlawed. I could do this as soon as I got an assassin, which can be pretty early, or even 1st year if modded so.
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Could it be as simple as this?
Idea: Set up your mod so that Senate-controlled Rome has no units, and place a "Roman" army next to Rome. On the first turn, move in and conquer the city, thereby starting a war with the Etruscans and Samnites, and removing the Senate from the game.
Issue: If the AI controls the "Unified Rome" faction, they probably won't attack the Senate on turn#1, no matter how weak they are.
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt45
I have 2 points for consideration. The 1st is the descr_strat file for the campaign. At the bottom, you can modify the initial diplomatic stances of faction vs. faction.
Excellent idea. Here were the changes I made prior to playing a test game:
faction_relationships romans_julii, at_war_with romans_senate, romans_brutii, romans_scipii
faction_relationships romans_scipii, at_war_with romans_senate, romans_brutii, romans_julii
faction_relationships romans_brutii, allied_to romans_senate
faction_relationships romans_brutii, at_war_with romans_julii, romans_scipii
faction_relationships romans_senate, allied_to romans_brutii
faction_relationships romans_senate, at_war_with romans_julii, romans_scipii
The result was that playing as the Brutii, I opened the game at war with the Julii and Scipii - and remained allied with the Senate - at least for a while. I had an early attack on the Julii navy, which the game accepted, although there were no outlaw messages. I messed around building infrastructure and taking on some Greek missions to get cash, and finally attacked Capua in 258BC. In 260, the Scipii tried to lift the siege and failed, whereupon I finally assaulted and captured the city. This resulted in a bunch of oulaw messages. The Senate outlawed the Scipii twice and me once, all in the same set of turn-ending messages - meaning that for some reason I'm now at war with the Senate, too! So it looks like this approach has some promise, but there are issues that need to be studied further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt45
I found a shortcut to civil war among Romans by setting up a failed assassination attempt against another Roman faction. I was outlawed. I could do this as soon as I got an assassin, which can be pretty early, or even 1st year if modded so.
Not sure how to mod this in at the start...maybe you could run some tests? The goal would be 1st turn outlaw messages against the other two factions (representing Etruscans/Samnites).
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kull
Could it be as simple as this?
Idea: Set up your mod so that Senate-controlled Rome has no units, and place a "Roman" army next to Rome. On the first turn, move in and conquer the city, thereby starting a war with the Etruscans and Samnites, and removing the Senate from the game.
Issue: If the AI controls the "Unified Rome" faction, they probably won't attack the Senate on turn#1, no matter how weak they are.
I have tested an "empty" senate faction. Only the faction leader is needed. If you want the senate to disappear thus place this one unit (general bodyguards) out of Rome city and place a "roman" army near there. In the first turn you have the message telling that the senate has been eliminated and this general is now a rebel general. The first movement of the nearby roman army (AI controlled) is to attack this rebel mini-army.
I haven't tested this strategy with the three roman factions (only Julii is present) but it could be work. Finally you should put the Julii at war with the other two from the beginning and in this way the first task of the romans will be to unify Italy.
If this explanation is not clear enough I can post some screenshots.
Cheers.
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Why not just get rid of the Senate altogether? See here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44580
Then you can make the three "family" factions into whatever you want, and start them out at war with each other.
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkwarrior
I have tested an "empty" senate faction. Only the faction leader is needed. If you want the senate to disappear thus place this one unit (general bodyguards) out of Rome city and place a "roman" army near there. In the first turn you have the message telling that the senate has been eliminated and this general is now a rebel general. The first movement of the nearby roman army (AI controlled) is to attack this rebel mini-army.
I haven't tested this strategy with the three roman factions (only Julii is present) but it could be work. Finally you should put the Julii at war with the other two from the beginning and in this way the first task of the romans will be to unify Italy.
If this explanation is not clear enough I can post some screenshots.
Cheers.
Please do post some sceenshots - also, what files did you have to modify (if any), and what were the changes? (I'd like to test this with all factions present.)
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kull
However, according to khelvan of the EB team, the result is "bugs" and/or "nuisances".
It used to, yes, but we've eliminated all of those. They all stemmed from incomplete removal of the two factions. You can boot up any version from 5.0 on and see for yourself.
-Simetrical
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kull
The Challenge: The fundamental question is this - can the game be modded such that it starts with the Civil War already in process, and if not can we make adjustments to Senate/People popularity such that it will inevitably ensue shortly after the game begins?
First of all my thanks to Colt45, Monkwarrior, and Stuie, each of whom identified methods by which the Civil War can, indeed, be initiated right at the start of the game! Additional insights are always welcome, but at least now we know it's possible. Plenty of testing is still necessary in order to determine how reliable these methods are, but there seem to be several possible variants to the original Romans/Etruscans/Samnites concept:
1) Senate Eliminated on first turn
2) One Roman faction plus Senate (in Rome)
3) One Roman faction (in Rome) plus Senate (hidden elsewhere on map)
Scenario #1 (aka the "Bouie Method" - the originator of the thread to which Stuie provided a link) seems less complicated than the others, plus it's alleged that this allows the other two "Roman factions" to be designated as something else entirely (i.e. two fully moddable factions). The primary "minus" is the elimination of an entire feature of the game - interactions with the Senate. Keep in mind that early Rome was a Republic, and dealing with the Senate partially simulates this to some extent. Scenarios #2 & #3 retain the Senate, but there's likely to be a great deal of additional complexity in getting this to work in a smooth and consistent fashion (consider my earlier test of Colt45's idea - essentaily Scenario #2 - in which the Brutii wound up outlawed despite being Allied to the Senate!)
Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts on these options - and/or others!
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
It used to, yes, but we've eliminated all of those. They all stemmed from incomplete removal of the two factions. You can boot up any version from 5.0 on and see for yourself.
-Simetrical
Thanks for the clarification - I'm going to download the latest version of RTR and will check that out. After perusing some of the RTR threads, it sounds as if you guys are using Scenario #2 in V.5, but plan on going to Scenario #1 in v.6. Could you share some thoughts on why - and whether you considered other options?
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Mainly because it's inconsistent. You, the player, represent the government of whatever faction you're playing. The Carthaginians had a senate, too; why do you play their senate but not the Roman Senate?
-Simetrical
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Mainly because it's inconsistent. You, the player, represent the government of whatever faction you're playing. The Carthaginians had a senate, too; why do you play their senate but not the Roman Senate?
-Simetrical
The three families feature is completely ahistorical, and thus SHOULD be eliminated. But the role of the Senate as dispenser of largesse, missions, political offices, and occasional interference is at least somewhat realistic. Removing it completely takes away some of the flavor of the game (at least for humans who play as Rome), and unless there's a REALLY good reason, why do it? No offense, but simply because other factions are deprived of this feature - well, that's an odd rationale for yanking some of the fun out of the game!
If it caused bugs, or hindered the expansionist capabilities of an AI controlled Rome - well THOSE would be good reasons to eliminate the Senate! Given the extensive testing the RTR team has undoubtedly performed in this area, surely there's a better reason than "Carthage doesn't have it either"! ~;)
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Hello,
I would like to share some facts here, and of cource not to dispute the validity of this great Mod undertaking.
Representing both the Etruscans and the Samnites is actually a foundation of Rome, however, not at the time RTW is set to begin but rather much earlyer, yet if both these other civilisations were not there maybe Rome would never have become what we know it today. So kudos on the effort!
On the other hand, to say that the present implementation of RTW is completelly Ahistorical and ficticious, is in itself a matter of debate.
Quote:
The basic premise of RTW is that three Roman families build their own separate territorial holdings over a period of generations, and then at some point fight a Civil War until one faction becomes the leader of all Rome. Of course - as most of you know - this "tri-partite Rome" has ZERO basis in historical fact.
It all depends on how you see it. We do know from Historical accounts that Rome was not a Unified and Homogenous Society.
Far from it, it was Authoritatian, the first fascist Society in History actually,(And please do not make the mistake to compare it to the 20th century version of fascism that Benito Musolini tried to implementwhich is a version heavilly influenced and based on as we know, the concept of Nationalism which is a phenomenon of the 19th Century, rooted in 1648's Treaty of Westphalia where the Nation-State was born.)
It was also a society that had ambitions.
But above all, a society that practiced the inclusive conquest of other civilisations, normally out of its own Heterogenous nature.
Romans, fought and conquered the Etruscans, as well as dominated the Samnites, but they did not exclude them from their society they incorporated them in theirs adding to its Heterogenous nature. A clear Historical example of this is the fact that Romans practiced many religions, not all at the same time but you would have all of the known Shrines and Temples inside Cities. You would have parts of the population worshiping Egyptian Gods, yet others Celtic ones and so on.
And where this game starts is at a second phase of Roman Expansion, where Rome having established its hegemony on the Italian peninsula was now looking outside comparing itself with other and older civilisations.
The fact that we start with Units reminescent of Samnite and Etruscan Armors and ways of fighting Battles is not a coincidence. Romans often learned from those that they "included" in to their Empire.
The best exemple is with Greece, Romans not only adopted Military Fashion from the Greeks, but a large part of the Culture, including Art, Sciences, Philosophy and Religion.
The Military aspect of this Constant Learning by Trial and error, re-evaluating one's self and redeploying better and more adapted equipment, is very well represented in the game sumed up in one event, the Marian Event.
And as such, the main point of this reply, which is to acknowledge that this is in fact a game, and several decisions had to be made that may seem "Ahistorical" to the average person, but that stem from a very thourough research in to History.
Certain realities of it simply can;t be implemented in to a Game. And these are decisions that anyone would have to make if they underwent the process of making such a game.
So lets See History First:
Quote:
The Great Roman Civil War
The First Triumvirate was composed of Julius Caesar, Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) and Marcus Licinius Crassus. When Crassus died after the battle of Carrhae civil war broke out between Caesar and Pompey for control of Rome. In 49 the senate, backing Pompey, ordered Caesar to disband his army and give up his province of Gaul. Instead of giving up, Caesar crossed the Rubicon river setting off a civil war. After a five year struggle accross many battlefields, Caesar defeated his enemies and was sole ruler of Rome.
:duel:
Quote:
The Roman Civil War
After the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 bc his heir Octavian (Augustus) along with Mark Antony and Marcus Lepidus were designated by the Senate as the Second Triumvirate. At first, they worked together to defeat their opposition then they fought amongst themselves. Octavian defeated Antony and Lepidus and became the first emperor of Rome.
So History speaks very clearly of Roman Civil Wars, against powerfull men...men that had famillies...men that had provinces...men that had armies..
Their own Armies and Provinces :book:
Their own House and Leggion Emblems!
the mere fact that the Devellopers decided to apply the Fammilly standard to three Factions is not ahistorical at all, these are after all the three most POWERFULL famillies of Rome at the time...(btw Scripii represent Pompeius Magnus).
Doyou really think that men like that would not have several of their familly members helping them all over Itally? Do you think these familly members would not have other lesser famillies in their support. Well you immagine it and all of the sudden you understand that the fact that the game makes such a clear cut netween the three factions is but a representation of the influence of these three famillies! makes sence doesn't it? ~;)
Yes I agree they were not necessarilly Red Green and Blue, but how difficult would it have been if all the Forces in the game wore the same uniform?
So the colors are a Gameplay Decision! ~:grouphug:
So to keep hammering Its Ahistorical...its Ahistorical...is Incorect my friend, and I do invite you to read a bit of History before you come to such conclusions!
Consider not only one aspect, consider many aspects of it from the social to the Military without never forgeting that this IS a game after all, and the main goal (except from making money) is to bring fun and enjoyment of what is a representation of the very complex realities of life in Rome back then! :charge:
Put the player in the place of the head of one of the powerfull famillies of Rome and as much as possible in a position for them to balance The Ambitions of the Empire the Security of the Empire (Senate Popularity, Mob Popularity), One's own Ambitions for themselves and their Familly (Own faction and provinces), Insuring Victory over Rival Fammilies (Other 2 Roman Factions), Insuring Victory of the Empire (Non Roman Factions).
Such was life back then, and I think, I really applaud actually the implementation from its overal point of view! Yes small details here and there may have been missed, yet I think we all understand that Rome is not something you can just take a drop in to a design with the snap of a finger!
For what it is it came out Great, and if someone has some real knowledge of Roman History, they can understand the design simply by reminding themselves that it is a game.
That being said, I really look forward to this Mod! Being able to start it all from the begining will indeed be quite the challenge!
And if I may suggest a way to do start it all.
Keep the Senate(Rome without a Senate would be simply Ahistorical ~D ), and start the players faction in the two adjacent territories, with the Etruscans to the North and the Samnites to the South of the Italian peninsula.
Cheers! ~:cheers:
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
I very much appreciate the positive tone of your posting, and will respond in kind! However, we disagree on a few points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Representing both the Etruscans and the Samnites is actually a foundation of Rome, however, not at the time RTW is set to begin but rather much earlyer, yet if both these other civilisations were not there maybe Rome would never have become what we know it today. So kudos on the effort!
The Etruscans were not much of a factor after the fall of Veii (396 BC), but that was largely due to their conflict with the Gauls. Although Rome was sacked by the Gauls in 390, they were extremely fortunate to have the Etruscans as a buffer - w/o this valuable (and largely ignored) service, the world would undoubtedly be a very different place, since Rome alone could not have turned back the Gallic incursions. As for the Samnites, the 3rd and Final Samnite War ended in 290BC - a scant 20 years before RTW officially begins.
Quote:
On the other hand, to say that the present implementation of RTW is completelly Ahistorical and ficticious, is in itself a matter of debate.
I referred specifically to the use of three dynastic families who build their own territorial empires over a period of hundreds of years and pass them on to other family members. During the Republic - the period represented by this game - there is simply no historic parallel. Which means it's COMPLETELY ahistorical. ~;)
Quote:
And as such, the main point of this reply, which is to acknowledge that this is in fact a game, and several decisions had to be made that may seem "Ahistorical" to the average person, but that stem from a very thourough research in to History.
Certain realities of it simply can;t be implemented in to a Game. And these are decisions that anyone would have to make if they underwent the process of making such a game.
I'll give the developers the benefit of the doubt, and assume that extensive research was performed. And from a game perspective, playing with 3 families is interesting. Even further, I'll give them major kudos for the "Civil War" implementation - it's a novel and relatively successful way to combat "end-game-tedium", the period when you are the largest power and are simply gathering up the scraps of empire. Since the Civil War involves battles against "empires" almost as large as your own - and similarly equipped - it's a rare late game moment of danger. So from a game play perspective, this is all nicely done.
Quote:
So lets See History First: :duel:
Indeed, let's!!
Quote:
So History speaks very clearly of Roman Civil Wars, against powerfull men...men that had famillies...men that had provinces...men that had armies..
Their own Armies and Provinces :book:
Their own House and Leggion Emblems!
the mere fact that the Devellopers decided to apply the Fammilly standard to three Factions is not ahistorical at all, these are after all the three most POWERFULL famillies of Rome at the time...(btw Scripii represent Pompeius Magnus).
Do you really think that men like that would not have several of their familly members helping them all over Itally? Do you think these familly members would not have other lesser famillies in their support. Well you immagine it and all of the sudden you understand that the fact that the game makes such a clear cut netween the three factions is but a representation of the influence of these three famillies! makes sence doesn't it? ~;)
Yes I agree they were not necessarilly Red Green and Blue, but how difficult would it have been if all the Forces in the game wore the same uniform?
So the colors are a Gameplay Decision! ~:grouphug:
So to keep hammering Its Ahistorical...its Ahistorical...is Incorect my friend, and I do invite you to read a bit of History before you come to such conclusions!
Here is where we differ sharply. There were two triumvirate periods, the first lasting 10 years and the second lasting 12 years. 22 years total. That's only FIVE PERCENT of the entire 450 year history of the Republic (or 9% if you want to measure from the start of this game.)
As to your argument that these men had families, provinces, and armies - well, how many of them actually DID pass these along to their heirs in dynastic fashion?
1st Triumvirate:
Crassus (no - was killed by the Parthians, and did not pass power on to a relative)
Caesar (yes - passed power on to his nephew Octavian)
Pompey (no - he was killed, as were his sons)
2nd Triumvirate:
Lepidus (no - was forced into retirement)
Octavian (yes, founder of the Roman Empire)
Antony (no - he was killed and his family retained neither provinces nor armies)
So what have we learned? There was ONE dynastic family, and their two-generation retention of power was sufficient to end the Republic and inaugurate the empire. So much for "three family realism"! ~:)
Quote:
Consider not only one aspect, consider many aspects of it from the social to the Military without never forgeting that this IS a game after all, and the main goal (except from making money) is to bring fun and enjoyment of what is a representation of the very complex realities of life in Rome back then! :charge:
Put the player in the place of the head of one of the powerfull famillies of Rome and as much as possible in a position for them to balance The Ambitions of the Empire the Security of the Empire (Senate Popularity, Mob Popularity), One's own Ambitions for themselves and their Familly (Own faction and provinces), Insuring Victory over Rival Fammilies (Other 2 Roman Factions), Insuring Victory of the Empire (Non Roman Factions).
Such was life back then, and I think, I really applaud actually the implementation from its overal point of view! Yes small details here and there may have been missed, yet I think we all understand that Rome is not something you can just take a drop in to a design with the snap of a finger!
For what it is it came out Great, and if someone has some real knowledge of Roman History, they can understand the design simply by reminding themselves that it is a game.
As I mentioned earlier, there's no argument that the developers came up with a novel approach in this game. And it can be interesting and fun to play. However, the three dynastic familes approach is not even remotely historical! ~:cheers:
Quote:
That being said, I really look forward to this Mod! Being able to start it all from the begining will indeed be quite the challenge!
And if I may suggest a way to do start it all.
Keep the Senate(Rome without a Senate would be simply Ahistorical ~D ), and start the players faction in the two adjacent territories, with the Etruscans to the North and the Samnites to the South of the Italian peninsula.
Cheers! ~:cheers:
Thank you. And I agree that the Senate should be retained, and those would be (roughly) the starting points of the Etruscan and Samnite factions. :bow:
Re: Romans/Etruscans/Samnites instead of Brutii/Julii/Scipii
Hello Kull,
Well, I still tend to disagree because I see your perception a question of just that, perception.
Of cource no Offense intended, but my own perception based on my own intimate knowledge of Roman and Ancient History, simply explains the way this Game Was Structured.
I completelly Understand from where you are comming from however with your point of Dynastic hand over.
I simply do not perceive it as such, to me when I play the game the Various Colors are but a representation of the Influence of the Men and their famillies.
Now when I speak of familly I do not mean our 21st Century perception of it, famillies includes Uncles and Distant Cousins, their uncles and their distant Cousins, simply anyone that has some type of relation in time with one of the Heads of the Factions.
So this is not a clear cut Dynastic structure, and the Julii, Scipii and Brutii are but Roman Contenders, not Kings of their own Kingoms, but rather Men of Power bellonging never the less to Rome, with their own ambitions and own Influence, own Armies Loyal to them to the point of being willing to back their Leaders in the advent of a Civil War.
Yet where we do disagree is at that single distinction, you seem to raise the implementation ofthe game to the Hights of Distinct and Closelly Allied Factions, where in reality they are all One! They are all Romans they all work for the Good and Glory of Rome, untill they see the chance to seize it for themselves...and trully...such was the way of life back then in Rome..and not a collection of Semantics of who died where and who inherited his own House and bellongings let alone Power and Authority.
When these men of Power died, their armies were most often disbanded, or absorbed inside someone else's armies.
In Conclusion, I do not find the game Ahistorical at all, because what it strives to represent is based in Historical fact, wither some of us like the way it was done and presented or not, it does not change that fact that in History it is based. :)
Now that being said,
The Etruscans, well, I hope that we are talking History here, and not Chronology, these are two different things even if one refers to the other.
Chronology is there to help us pinpoint events in History, sometimes important and sometimes trivial.
But Chronology is not History in itself, and to better understand why some things were how they were we need a closer look at History.
As I am sure you know, History is all about people, their lives, their culture, their language, their art, their beliefs, their heritage, their traditions, their knowledge, their accomplishments and their short commings and so on, certaintly not a bunch of Dates.
But lest keep this on the constructive side and bring some actual History here, shall we?
As Such...
The History of Etruria
"...a careful study of the archaeological evidence is sufficient to persuade us that both the predominant role and the absolute chronological priority in the formation of the civilisation of Ancient Italy belong to the Etruscans" - The late Massimo Pallottino
Although the Greeks of Cumae had considerable influence, particularly in Campania and in Latium, the influence of the Etruscans is evidenced in a number of areas. Writing itself was brought to the people of Latium by the Etruscans. Archaic Latin inscriptions did not begin to appear until around 600 BCE, during the period of the Etruscan monarchy. These inscriptions such as the Lapis Niger Stele are written in both directions (left to right, then right to left). The letter C, developed by the Etruscans from the Greeks to represent the unvoiced K sound was carried on into Latin, even though the Latin language had a G sound. The letter G itself evolved at a later stage. The letter Q is found in Archaic Etruscan as well as Latin inscriptions, although this was dropped as a redundant letter in the later Etruscan alphabet.
Apart from the linguistic evidence of Etruscan loan words in Latin, we have the physical evidence of typically Etruscan Orientalization period tombs being found throughout Latium, in Palestrina and even in Rome itself.
Knowledge of Rome's early history by the end of the Republic was limited to the traditions recorded by a few authors, and most of this work was based upon a single source, that of Varro.
Most of what Livy and others wrote during the first Century BCE is collected legends, many of Etruscan origins but ascribed to this period together with a few fragments of historical fact. If Romulus Numa Pompilius and Tullus Hostilius actually existed, they would be the equivalent of village chieftains. They certainly had no kingdom to speak of. There is archaeological evidence is that only with the first of the Etruscan kings, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (616-578) came a clearing of all the old huts and the foundation of a city in accordance with Etruscan ritual. Lucius is thought to be a Latin corruption of the Etruscan word Lauchum, meaning king.
It was the 19th Century writer Mommsen who first began to question the traditional accounts of the foundation of Rome. He wrote "Of course there is no question of an actual foundation of the city as the legend supposes.... The story of the establishment of Rome by Romulus and Remus is nothing but a naïve invention of ancient pseudo history... It is essential for historians to clear away all such fables purporting to be history."
This statement, in his Römische Geschichte was quite bold considering the lack of proof at that time. When he talked of clearing away the fables, little did he know that as old fables were cleared away, a myriad of new and ever more hideous fables grew up in their place, in the manner of the Medusa.
In the preface to his histories, Livy himself wrote, "Events before Rome was born, or thought of have come to us in old tales with more of the charm of poetry than of a sound historical record, and such traditions I propose neither to affirm nor refute. There is no reason, I feel, to object when antiquity draws no hard line between the human and the supernatural : it add dignity to the past, and, if any nation deserves the privilege of claiming divine ancestry, that nation is our own."
It was to be early in the 20th Century that the first proof backing Mommsen's earlier theories was to be unearthed. Excavating near the ruins of the palace of the Emperor Domitian, in some of the earlier horizons, dating back to the 8th Century BCE, the Italian archaeologist Boni discovered postholes of huts. Further deep excavations revealed additional primitive dwellings going back to the beginning of the second millenium. There was evidence of shifting settlements. The remains of similar villages were found on the Esquiline and the Quirinal, but each separate from each other. By the early seventh century, the hilltop dwellings started to be built on the slopes as well. Then about 625 BCE, the settlements spread farther out. For the first time, the settlements spread into the valleys - a result of draining of the marshes, and evidence of Etruscan Engineering expertise at work.
In 1963, excavations on the site of the Forum Boarium unearthed many shards of bucchero, (the indicative pottery of the Etruscans) relating to that period.
The site of Rome itself was located near an island on the Tiber which provided a convenient crossing for the Etruscans during their frequent travels within Latium and their city states in Campania. About 575 BCE, the evidence shows that the familiar picture of primitive settlements suddenly changes. The straw and reed-roofed wattle huts at the foot of the Palatine, Esquiline and Quirinal disappear from the ground. This was not due to destruction by war or fire, but in accordance with a carefully planned building program.
The Swedish Archaeologist Einar Gjerstad said "There is no doubt that this date is epoch making in the history of Rome, marking the transition from a primitive and rustic type of habitation to a monumental and urbanistic form of culture. This transformation from pagi to urbs is the real foundation of Rome, inasmuch as Urbs and Roma are synonymous.
The forum itself was pebbled about that time. In that first 50 years, a considerable amount of progress had been made, starting with the draining of the marshes and the formation of an integrated city.
The Forum was outside that area in that first 50 years, and thereafter became the focal point of the city- Progress radiated from the forum at an astonishing rate. The streets were laid out in a regular manner, in accordance with Etruscan ritual. Sewers were laid in the centres of the streets. At the foot of the Palatine stood the Regia- the sanctuary of the king, and the round temple of Vesta (Etruscan Hestia) which also dated from about this period.
753 BCE was the legendary date for the founding of Rome, but the probable foundation of Rome as a city was in the late seventh century BCE, not the mid 8th.
The notion of founding a city is not entirely modern. The Romans learned their rites for foundation of a city from the Etruscans and adopted them. The Romulus Legend itself preserves the more etrusco. According to Plutarch, Romulus "sent out for men out of Tuscany, who directed him by sacred usages and written rules in all the ceremonies to be observed, as in a religious rite." This model which appeared in the legend of Roma quadrata, was also reflected in the layout and orientation of Roman military camps, and include such details as the Via Praetoria, which is aligned with the Etruscan decumana, and the Via Principalis, aligned with the cardo. The cosmic conceptions associated with directions (in accordance with Piacenza liver) the also had an influence on the the significance of the gates. The auspicious Eastern facing porta praetoria was a lucky gate, and legionaries would march to battle through this gate.
Tarquinius Priscus was the son of a Greek who went to live in Tarquinii, in Etruria, from which he moved to Rome on the advice of his Etruscan wife, the prophet Tanaquil upon seeing an apparition of a dismembered head (which was to signify that Rome would become the "Head of all Italy"). Changing his name to Lucius Tarquinius, he was appointed guardian to the sons of Ancus Marcius. Upon the death of Ancus, Tarquin assumed leadership.
As previously noted, evidence shows that shortly after this, between about 625 and 575 BCE, the marshy ground between the hills was drained thanks to the skills of Etruscan engineers, and people began to occupy these areas. The Cloaca Maxima, the Great Sewer of Rome dates from about that time, and is still used to this day.
By 575, Etruscan Rome was becoming a true city and was making rapid progress in civil engineering, roads, a sewer system, and a water supply.
The Second Etruscan king of Rome was Servius Tullius, (579-534 BCE) whose Etruscan name was Mastarna and who was born in Vulci.
Livy's story was a lot more imaginative that this: The story of the son of a slave being brought up by the royal family as one of their own may have been fabricated in order to deny the fact that Rome's great reformer who laid down the laws which were later adopted in the new republic was born an Etruscan.
There are two clues which tell us otherwise. The first is a fragmentary speech given by the Emperor Claudius which tells the Etruscan version of the origins of Servius Tullius. The second is the painting of Etruscan heroes in the Francois Tomb at Vulci. Among the inscriptions is one "Macstarna" and the Vibenna brothers who fought against Tarquinius Priscus in battle. The Vibenna brothers were both killed in the conflict, but Mastarna was victorious, and went on to take the throne of Rome under the name Servius Tullius. (According to Livy, the sons of Ancus conspired to murder Tarquin.)
The defeat of Tarquinius Priscus by Servius Tullius was probably the result of conflict between the interests of two or three Etruscan cities, probably Tarquinia, Vulci and Veii. Evidence has been found in Veii of votive offerings by one Avele Vipenna of Vulci and is associated with this time of conflict.
During his forty five year reign, Servius Tullius founded the earliest and most important shrine of the Latin deity Diana on the Aventine Hill.
Many reforms occurred during the reign of Servius Tullus. He made major changes in the army. Originally, the army was composed of mounted warriors from the aristocratic classes called celeres or equites who rode into battle, dismounted, and engaged in individual combat with an opponent. Only those wealthy enough to outfit themselves with armor, equipment, and one or more horses were eligible to join these elite units. These equites should not be confused with the later social class called equites or knights, who ranked below the senatorial class in political power. Servius Tullus raised a levy of troops who needed only supply their own armor and weapons and organized them into phalanxes like those of the Greek Hoplites. The success of the phalanx in battle was due to teamwork and discipline rather than individual heroics. It was an enclosed box formation in which several ranks of troops could bring their long spears to bear on an enemy whilst enjoying the protection of the interlocked shields of the first couple of ranks. These units proved devastating when used in warfare against other Latin or Italian cities. This army consisted of 6000 men arranged into 60 centuries of 100 men each.
The Comitia Curiata was replaced by the Comitia Centuriata. Each century was thus supposed to be represented by one vote in the Centuriate Assembly. Later, the Romans were divided into 193 "centuries" for political purposes and the Centuriate Assembly consisted of 193 members.
The conquest of Alba Longa, Rome's ancient arch - rival city which lay 12 miles to the southeast of Rome is believed to have occurred some time during the reigns of the early kings. Other events in Roman history attributed to the period of the monarchy included the founding of the port of Ostia, originally situated to work salt deposits near the mouth of the Tiber and the building of Rome's first wooden bridge, the Pons Sublicius. The Servian Wall is attributed to Servius Tullus but may have been begun earlier as an earthen rampart and probably only enclosed the northern portion of the city during Tullus' reign.
A crucial treaty between Rome and the Latin League is also assigned to his reign. According to Livy, Servius Tullius was eventually killed by his daughter and her husband, who was to become the final king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (Tarquin the Proud).
The reign of Tarquin the Proud reign is dated from 534 to 509BCE. He was in legend, the son or grandson of Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius. Tarquin supposedly murdered Tullius and established an absolute despotism--hence his name Superbus, meaning "the proud."
Tinia, Uno and Menrva (Jupiter, Juno and Minerva) were the Etruscan gods worshipped during the period of the Etruscan monarchy and the great temple on the Capitoline hill dedicated to the trinity was built by Tarquinius Superbus.
According to Livy , a reign of terror followed, and many senators were put to death. Eventually a group of senators led by Lucius Junius Brutus (another Etruscan nobleman) raised a revolt. According to several sources including Livy, the final straw was the rape of the noblewoman, Lucretia, by Tarquin's son Sextus.
Most historians believe that the actual reason for the fall of the Monarchy was a power struggle between the king and the leading aristocratic families. Tarquin attempted to curb the rising power of the aristocrats by packing the Senate with 200 of their supporters, increasing the total membership to 300 men. These were known as the conscripti or the enrolled ones and this word became part of the official title of the Senate, the Patres Conscripti or Conscript Fathers.
The Tarquin family was expelled from Rome, the monarchy at Rome was abolished and the Aristocracy set up a republic in 509 BCE.
This was not unique to Rome, and it seems that in the fifth and sixth centuries the Etruscan city states saw a change of government. The kings were overthrown by the land owning aristocracy and a government of annual magistrates was introduced. The details of Etruscan republican government are by no means clear, though the titles zilath, maru and purthne are attested for the chief magistrate.
The Establishment of a Republic did not mean that Rome became a completely Latinised city. Rome still had a considerable Etruscan influence for about 50 - 60 years afterwards. A substantian number of the Aristocracy had Etruscan background. These included Lucius Junius Brutus, who was instrumental in expelling Tarquinius Superbus.
The first two consuls were the above mentioned Brutus and Tarquinius Collatinus (both Etruscan).
By 506BC, we had Titus Herminius and Spurius Lacius etc . All of the above mentioned had Etruscan Lineage and the same pattern emerges up until the mid 5th century BCE.
As such, born from an already established Tradition, even if Rome Passed to the Latins from the Etruscans, the Traditions were kept and the new Arena for Power was now the Senate Floor.
Men of Rome would and did strive for absolute Influence and absolute Power, and I think the Implementation of the Game does represent this in a very Historical way! To say that it has no basis in History is still Innacurate my friend.
Lets now briefly visit the Decline, what maybe more of interest to the Topic at hand and eventual Mod. :)
The Decline of the Etruscans
In 524 BCE, Etruscan ships attacked Cumae, the major Greek city of Campania and were defeated. 18 years later in 506 BCE this decision backfired on the Etruscans when an alliance of Cumae Greeks and Latins defeated Lars Porsenna at Aricia. The Romans themselves had been disarmed by Lars Porsenna's forces following his occupation of the city, These defeats severely weakened Etruscan control over land and sea routes.
The writings of Livy and Diodorus Siculus reflect an alternative history with Rome bravely resisting Lars Porsenna (Mucius Scaevola, Horatius Cocles, etc).
The 5th Century was a dark time for the Etruscan states. Whilst the Etruscan cities had reached the peak of their economic development, the Greek colonies were undergoing a period of overwhelming cultural and political growth.
On the border between Etruria and Latium, a new danger had also appeared: the city of Rome which, once dominated and ruled by an Etruscan dynasty, had gained its independence, and gone on the attack. The decline of the Etruscans also worsened at sea in 474 BC, when the Greeks of Italy, led by the city of Syracuse in league with Latium, defeated them at Cumae in a decisive defeat.(Livy Hist. II,14 & Dionysius of Halicarnassas VII, 5&6).
The overall effect of this was to accelerate the collapse of the Etruscan hegemony over Latium.This was a also the beginning of the wars between Rome and Veii. After the defeat at Cumae, the Etruscans effectively lost control over the Tyrrhenian Sea.
On land as well, the situation rapidly deteriorated, The restriction of Land and sea links to Campania, together with an invading wave of Samnites in Southern Italy (Diodorus Siculus XII,31,1) resulted in the loss of Campania in about 430 BCE. To the North, the Umbrians advanced and occupied Rimini and Ravenna (Strabo V,1,7 & 10-11) but the main cause of the Etruscan demise in the plain of the Po was an invasion by the Celts (Cenomani and Boii- who gave their name to Bologna, as well as the Insubres and Senones). These Celtic tribes, crossed from the northern side of the Alps to reach Picenum and Etruria in the late 5th century, and virtually destroyed Rome in 386 BCE according to M.Sordi (traditionally 391 BCE).
From the mid 4th century BC, the once flourishing commercial and military power of the Etruscans was thus reduced to city-states which retreated into their original territories in central Italy.
In the end, they also participated in the final struggle against the newly born Roman power during the 3rd century BC. The proud city-states, lacking a strong national identity, were not able to co-ordinate any real resistance and were thus defeated one by one.
With the loss of political independence, the cycle of an ancient people who for centuries had been the cultural and economic leaders of the western Mediterranean came to an end.
Also,
Article by Velthur Valerius on Etruria and Carthage (from the Ancient Sites Etruria Board, Italy)
The first Italic peoples to endure Roman expansionism outside of Latium were the Etruscans, just as the Carthaginians were the first people outside of the italian peninsula to face the imperialism of Rome.
Rome began its attacks on Etruria in approximately 498 BCE and concluded in 264 BCE with the complete conquest of Etruria. They endured a total of 234 years varying between conflicts, counter attacks, reprisals and truces - an extremely long period of time.
United Etruria was militarily more powerful and and more populous than Rome but the religious alliance of the twelve did not extend to mutual political or military support.
The Etruscan league cities of this period faced their Roman adversary either on their own or in partial groupings, but never all united. Secondly, in these 234 years Etruscan politics were in damage control mode, and were preoccupied with the politics of aggression. The Etruscans felt that they were too strong to succumb to Rome which for that moment was engaged with the Samnites of Southern Italy.
Nothing that happened subsequently was to change their attitude- neither the death throes of their naval supremacy (The beginning of the end was their defeat at Cumae in 474 BCE) nor the loss of the Po Valley League to the Celts.
Inexplicably, the two other thalassocratic Queens of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the western Mediterranean, namely the Greeks of Syracuse and the Punic peoples of Carthage were to stand by and watch the systematic defeat of Etruria. They saw in this the elimination of an old military adversary, and above all the demise of a commercial seafaring contender. They failed to comprehend that their own territories would be the next conquest for the invincible Roman legions.
The Roman campaign against Carthage began in 264 BCE and would take 3 wars and 118 years of bloody conflict to finally gain victory over the City of Dido in 146 BCE. Carthage had less of a population to draw on than Etruria and hired the military service of mercenaries (Celts) and troops from subjugated populations (the Iberians, the Balearics, Libyans and Numidians), but Carthage was united and politically focussed, it was rich, and technologically advanced from the remnants of its own past expansionism, analagous to that of Rome.
All that did not save it from its eventual ruin and departure from the scene of the ancient world. The attitude of Rome against Etruria is worthy of consideration It is true that by romanisation the language and religion of Etruria were slowly eroded away- but this was a gradual and continuous process.
Food for thought perhaps? ;)
Best regards!
